Catholics! Who decided all of this?

[Rainbowcsr]

Being one to like to have information on many things in order to have reasonably well rounded opinions, I like to find out about all sorts of subjects. I happened to be thinking about religion the other day after seeing a bit of a television documentary concerning many unpublished books of the Bible and wondered about a few things.

I'm a Christian, though I probably would not be considered a very good one because I go to no specific church and don't like to pound people over the head with my version of Christianity and have long observed how Christians cannot even get along with other Christians -- which is why there seems to be so many different sects and churches. (In my small town of about 14,000 people, there are now something like 200 churches and more being built. It seems that every time I go out, some vacant lot is being plowed under for another church.)

Catholicism always comes under fire and I looked into it, being originally a Methodist. I came up with a few questions, especially after seeing the Pope lately on television.

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?
Since the bible states not to worship any graven images, who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary? Who also decided that Catholic Priests should have the power to forgive anyone their sins prior to death no matter what they have done in life? (THAT opened the door to major corruption ages ago.) Who decided that Nuns were to be wedded to Christ? I mean, from what I know, He was a bachelor. Who also decided that Priests and Nuns were to be celibate? Who also decided that the Pope must take such a firm stance against any form of artificial birth control?

I can understand the lure for becoming Catholic, for I think it is the only Christian religion which virtually guarantees one a ticket into heaven upon confessing one's sins or dying with the last rites even if one is a member of the Mafia and slaughtered a couple of hundred people. (The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

So, who decided all of this? I have not come across any text where Jesus set up anything for the Catholic religion and Moses, a Jew, was given the 10 commandments. Jesus was Jewish also. I have observed by looking at many religious paintings how most renditions of the Virgin Mary, painted mainly for the Catholic church, tend to make the Madonna and Child normal looking or radiant, but Joseph, Mary's husband, is usually portrayed as rather ugly and in a secondary station. Who decided that? (I won't go into the astonishing amount of really bad renditions of the Christ Child I have stumbled across in such paintings either, by artists of great talent.)

I watched the Pope and thought to myself that this guy is really old. How can he be in charge of a church which makes major life decisions for millions?

Who also started the practice of chopping up the bodies of Saints and Martyrs to spread around in pieces to the various churches?

So, who decided all of this?


------------------
What? Me worry?'

[Crystalguy]

I thought it was well known that the Illuminati made all of these decisions, with a little input from the Masons.

------------------
Crystalguy

[Gilligan]

Pardon the expression, but, Jesus Christ! If you want to know the history of Catholicism, there are a million books and websites you where you could get your answers. If you want to make fun of it, try the Pit.

[Persephone]

I don't think Rainbowcsr is making fun of Catholicism by starting this thread, Gilligan. Those are good questions. "Who decided to do these things" is always a good question, in any religion. You may not get a good answer, but hey, it's worth a try.

Sorry, I don't know any of the answers to those questions either. But I'll be watching, just in case anyone does have the answers!

------------------
This space blank, until Wally thinks up something cool to put here.

[milroyj]

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?

Jesus: "Thy name is Peter, upon this rock I build my Church." Peter was the first Pope, and all Christians for the first 1000 years or so followed his lead.

who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary?

Hogwash! What kinda tracts are you reading?

Who decided that Nuns were to be wedded to Christ? I mean, from what I know, He was a bachelor.

Nuns are "wedded" to Christ in the same way that Jesus was wedded to the Church. (Sorry, don't have the verse handy.)

(The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

Do you have a cite for that idiotic statement? No, didn't think so.

BTW, thanks for the Catholic-bashing, we haven't had that on the board for awhile.

[Northern Piper]

Until tom~ shows up, I'll take a crack at some of the questions, but I'm not in a debating mood, so I'll confine myself to what I know of the facts.

1. origins of the Pope - as the church grew into a broadly based organization, it gradually evolved the office of bishops. The bishop was in charge of the churches in a diocese (one of the administrative units of the Roman Empire). The bishops of certain major centres naturally tended to wield more clout (hey, it may be a religion, but human nature being what it is...). The Bishop of Rome, being the bishop for the capital of the Empire, naturally had a great deal of clout, but bishops from other major centres (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria) just as naturally contested the idea that the Bishop of Rome had any authority over them - all bishops being equal, and so on.

The Popes argued that the first Bishop of Rome was St. Peter, and that Jesus had given him authority over the entire church. According to Matthew, Peter was the first apostle to recognise the divinity of Jesus. Jesus then said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" [a pun on his name that sounded like "rock" in Aramaic]. Jesus then added that Peter would have the power of binding and loosing, the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16: 18 and following).

As the editors of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church succinctly state: "The precise interpretation of this passage has been the subject of much controversy."

The institutional disagreements between the Bishop of Rome, head of the western Latin church, and the bishops of the eastern, Greek churches, simmered along until 1054, when there was a final breach. The Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of Constantinople hurled mutual statements of anathema at each other, and the churches formally split, leaving the Bishop of Rome, as Pope, head of the western church, a condition that subsequently was challenged by the Reformation.

2. My understanding of Roman Catholic theology (admittedly sketchy) is that the saints are not worshipped. Rather, the saints are in heaven, and can intercede with God through their own prayers. Roman Catholics can pray to the saints for intercession, as illustrated by the "Hail Mary," which asks Mary to "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."

3. Absolution of sins flows from the concept that Jesus died for all sinners, leading to salvation. On an ongoing, individual basis, the sacrament of penance recognizes this doctrine. The priest in absolving someone who genuinely repents is implementing the doctrine of salvation. The absolution of sins is not restricted to the RC church, but in Protestant churches, the emphasis is more on the individual's confession to God, without the intermediary of the priest.

4. Celibacy gradually evolved. There is a long tradition in many religions of abstention as an expression of spirituality, and the Roman Catholic church gradually incorporated the concept of celibacy. Priests were originally allowed to marry, or not, on an individual basis. Gradually, the concept of celibacy spread, until it became church doctrine around 1000 A.D. (Not sure of the date, but somewhere around there.) It has never been accepted as a requirement for priests in the Eastern Orthodox churches (although it is a requirement for bishops), and was rejected by the Protestant churches.

5. Confession and penance are not automatic, even on one's death bed. The priest must be convinced that the repentence is genuine, and if there is time, the penitent must take steps to undo the damage done. Penance can be refused.

6. By tradition, the pope normally stays in office until death. Under canon law of the church, he can resign, but it is extremely rare, because such resignations in the past tended to be forced and contributed to schisms.

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Spiritus Mundi]

Jesus: "Thy name is Peter, upon this rock I build my Church." Peter was the first Pope, and all Christians for the first 1000 years or so followed his lead.

Actually, the situation in the early church was not quite so simple. Peter became the Patriarch of Rome, one of 5 patriarchs in the early church(es). What would become the Catholic Church used the verse cited to argue that the Patriarch of Rome should have precedence over all others. Other patriarchs did not always agree. The first 3 centuries of the church were actually rife with conflict over theological interpretations. Numerous heresies and divisions within the church resulted in thousands being slaughtered as heretics or driven from their homes.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Gilligan]

Maybe I overreacted. It's just that these questions can easily be researched by even an athiest like me with little difficulty. If you are really interested in knowing these things, here is a good source: www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

From this source, some answers to the OP:

Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word ``Pope'' doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church?

True, the word ``Pope'' doesn't appear in the Bible--but then neither do the words ``Trinity,'' ``Incarnation,'' ``Ascension'' and ``Bible'' appear in the Bible. However, they are referred to by other names. The Bible, for example, is referred to as ``Scripture.'' The Pope, which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to as the ``rock'' of the Church, or as the ``shepherd'' of the Church. Christ used that terminology when He appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying: ``Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.'' (Matt. 16:17-19). ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd.'' (John 10:16). ``Feed my lambs... feed my sheep.'' (John 21:15-17). The words ``rock'' and ``shepherd'' must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Certainly the other Apostles understood that Peter had authority from Christ to lead the Church, for they gave him the presiding place every time they assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).
In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was ``the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter.'' In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) ``mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood . . . the place of Peter.'' Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first Pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Literaria: ``That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients.'' Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ--by God Himself.

Why do Catholics worship Mary as though she were a goddess, when it is clear in Scripture that she was not a supernatural being?

Catholics do not worship Mary, the Mother of Christ--as though she were a deity. Of all the misconceptions about Catholic belief and practice, this one is the most absurd. Catholics are just as aware as Protestants that Mary was a human creature, and therefore not entitled to the honors which are reserved to God alone. What many non-Catholics mistake for adoration is a very profound love and veneration, nothing more. Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it. Canon Law 1255 of the 1918 Codex strictly forbids adoration of anyone other than the Holy Trinity. However, Catholics do feel that Mary is entitled to a great measure of exaltation because, in choosing her as the Mother of Redemption, God Himself exalted her--exalted her more than any other human person before or since. Catholics heap tribute and honor on Mary because they earnestly desire to be ``followers of God, as most dear children.'' (Eph. 5:1). Mary herself prophesied: ``For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.'' (Luke 1:48-49). Catholics know that every bit of the glory they give to Mary redounds to the glory of her divine Son, just as Mary magnified God, not herself, when Elizabeth blessed her. (Luke 1:41-55). They know that the closer they draw to her, the closer they draw to Him who was born of her. In the year 434 St. Vincent of Lerins defended Christian devotion to Mary this way: ``Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God.'' Today 75% of all Christians still hold to this same view.

Note to David and Gaudere - sorry if this is too much to copy from another source, please remove it if it's in violation of the rules.

[Bricker]

I would gently suggest that the OP assumes some facts that are not in evidence here.

I will do what I can.

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?

As suggested in a post above, Christ is said to have declared Peter the first Pope, leaving him in charge of the Church on Earth. When the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, they became the first bishops of the Church. Each succeeding bishop was ordained by the laying hands on of a previous bishop, and all of these to Christ. So in a sense, if I shake my bishop's hand, I can trace that touch back through thousands of men, all the way to Christ.

Since the bible states not to worship any graven images, who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary?

Contrary to what your question suggests, Catholics do not worship images of saints, or of the Virgin Mary. To do so, as you correctly point out, would be to flout God's command. Catholics do venerate the saints, and of all the saints, Mary, the Mother of God, holds a special place of respect and adoration in our hearts. But this is a far cry from worship.

We do also pray, not to a particular saint, but for a particular saint to intercede on our behalf with God. This may seem silly, but it's not that far removed from the practice, common to most Christians, of asking others to pray for them. "Please keep my mother in your prayers; she's very ill." Is this an acceptable request for the congregation at your church, but somehow unacceptable when directed to St. Mary? Catholics suspect that, as the woman chosen to be the Mother of God, that Mary's requests in prayer might be granted a bit more divine attention that someone else's. Even if this is not so, there is certainly nothing worse about asking Mary to pray in your behalf than in asking your friend in the next pew over to pray in your behalf -- right?

Who also decided that Catholic Priests should have the power to forgive anyone their sins prior to death no matter what they have done in life? (THAT opened the door to major corruption ages ago.)

Once again, you misapprehend the process. Priests absolve a penitent from sin in the name of God, not in their own behalf. The power to act to forgive sins on behalf of God was given to the Apostles, and passed to the scceeding bishops and priests.

And when you say, "No matter what they have done in life..." are you suggesting there are sins so heinous that they should be unforgiveable in God's eyes?

Who decided that Nuns were to be wedded to Christ? I mean, from what I know, He was a bachelor. Who also decided that Priests and Nuns were to be celibate?

He was, in fact, a bachelor. Nuns are wedded to Christ in the sense that they have committed to devoting their lives to His service, not in the sense that they have to discuss which in-laws to spend Thanksgiving with this year. I don't know who, if any one person, "decided" this, but it is a metaphorical concept.

The celibacy issue is moerely a practice of the Western Rite, and by no means universal over the life of the Church. The tradition dates back to an enactment of a local council in Elvira, Spain, in 306. The first comprehensive law making the priesthood and marriage incompatible was not promulgated until 1139. Who decided it? The bishops making up the Lateran II ecumenical council. The Council of Trent confirm this in 1563.

Recently, a number of exceptions have been permitted by modern popes. John Paul II extended exceptions to a number of married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism, for instance. Celibacy is a matter of church discipline and law, not one of dogma. It is thought to promote total dedication to ministry and service to the Church. But in the same way that the Pope could theoretically decree that henceforth the Mass would be celebrated only by priests wearing a tuxedo and top hat, so too could he change the rule about celibacy. It's not, in other words, a matter of divine guidance or an article of faith - it's just a rule to make the Church work better.

Who also decided that the Pope must take such a firm stance against any form of artificial birth control?

This is another matter of Church tradition, not dogmatic principle. The Church takes the position that every marital act must remain open to at least the possibility of the transmission of life. Since this teaching is within the purview of every successive Pope to modify or abolish, I would say that every Pope that's addressed the issue "decided" it.

I can understand the lure for becoming Catholic, for I think it is the only Christian religion which virtually guarantees one a ticket into heaven upon confessing one's sins or dying with the last rites even if one is a member of the Mafia and slaughtered a couple of hundred people. (The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

Yes, and I understand the majority of Mafia figures also have eaten peanut butter. What can we conclude about peanut butter from this information?

Your dubious comparison aside, you should know that most Christian sects do not admit to the possibility of unforgiveable sin. So I am at a loss to see why you suggest Catholics are alone in this doctrine.

In any event, genuine sorrow for one's sins and a firm resolve to avoid sin in the future is necessary for absolution. God's forgiveness is available to Mafia figures as well as politicians.

So, who decided all of this? I have not come across any text where Jesus set up anything for the Catholic religion and Moses, a Jew, was given the 10 commandments. Jesus was Jewish also.

Jesus said that he had come not to change the Mosiac Law, but to fulfill it. He gave us a new covenant, which he explained in his teachings.

I have observed by looking at many religious paintings how most renditions of the Virgin Mary, painted mainly for the Catholic church, tend to make the Madonna and Child normal looking or radiant, but Joseph, Mary's husband, is usually portrayed as rather ugly and in a secondary station. Who decided that? (I won't go into the astonishing amount of really bad renditions of the Christ Child I have stumbled across in such paintings either, by artists of great talent.)

I'm not sure I follow. Unquestionably, while St. Joseph is revered, it was Mary who was chosen by God to bear Jesus. It was Mary that was born without taint of original sin. Under these circumstances, Joseph getting second billing is perhaps understandable. But I've never seen him portrayed deliberately as ugly. Can you name a particular artist and painting?

I watched the Pope and thought to myself that this guy is really old. How can he be in charge of a church which makes major life decisions for millions?

What should be the age at which you can't be in charge of a church any more? Defend your answer.

By that I mean, of course, that as long as he can do the job, he outght to keep doing it. He has made major progress in internatinal and ecumenical issues during his papacy. What's the problem?

Who also started the practice of chopping up the bodies of Saints and Martyrs to spread around in pieces to the various churches?

The veneration of relics (chopped up saints, as you so movingly describe them) was started in the earliest days of Christianity, when St. Ignatius of Antioch was thrown to the lions and two companions came at night to gather his bones.

The Council of Trent affirmed the practice in 1563.

As with a statue or painting, we do not worship the object, but we revere the person represented by the object.

So, who decided all of this?

I hope I've helped you answer that.

- Rick

[Rainbowcsr]

I did not put this in the pit because I did not want it to turn into a soccer riot complete with various forms of name calling and accusations.

As for the section about the Mafia: A. Common knowledge, B. pointed out in two documentaries concerning the Mafia on the Discovery Channel in 1998. As was stated : 'most Mafia members are Catholic because they know that they can run business as usual, repent their sins on their death beds and be absolved.

On Discovery some time back, concerning religious paintings, it was also pointed out that Joseph is almost always displayed as somewhat ugly and twisted, as if the painter considered him evil, if he appears at all. I reflected on that, having once examined various works of art, many of which were religious paintings and came to the following conclusions:
A: They're right. Joseph is often painted in darker colors and often looks evil. He is also often placed in the background.
B: What some people consider magnificent works of art depicting the Christ Child and the Madonna had to have been done by painters who had 1: no skill at faces or 2: secretly disliked Mary and Jesus because he painted them very poorly and usually, in my opinion, homely or down right ugly.
C: Several of those Holy paintings actually should, in my opinion, be destroyed because of the ugliness.

Now, only one Protestant minister ever mentioned to me that everyone born is free of sin because Christ died on the cross for us and that so long as we believed, we were automatically forgiven. Upon asking him about people who do not believe in Christianity, he intelligently stated that they would be judged according to how well they followed their own laws. (That was a refreshing change from the usual bit where they will be burned in hell.)

I found that fascinating, though I do question the concept of being sinless because I would not find it very reassuring to find Adolph Hitler, Stalin and many others in Heaven.

Someone once told me that Chalamaign (PLEEZ PARDON SPELLING!) decided that there should be a Pope and decided that Priests could forgive a person their sins. If so, who was he to carry that authority?

I've also looked at most of the other major religions and observed a tremendous amount of similarities between them all. I find that interesting. It is my opinion that since men seem to have been mainly the inspired ones in the past, that, like many fanatics I've known about, they wrote the religious texts according to what they felt it should be and set up religious organizations based on their own beliefs -- whether correct or not. (Example -- the always harped upon exclusion of women as equal to men and kept virtually as property.)

But, who started the power base? Christ gave Peter a church, but I don't think he indicated that he was to be the ruler of all future churches of that sect. Most Catholics I know pray mostly to Mary, though in the Bible, Jesus is supposed to intercede for us when we sin. Plus, I probably do understand the 'Holy Relic' concept, but find it mildly barbaric. As I understand it, each Catholic Church has a relic in the alter.

Would that not tend to encourage the worship of the relic instead of God?


------------------
What? Me worry?'

[Gaudere]

I have observed by looking at many religious paintings how most renditions of the Virgin Mary, painted mainly for the Catholic church, tend to make the Madonna and Child normal looking or radiant, but Joseph, Mary's husband, is usually portrayed as rather ugly and in a secondary station. Who decided that? (I won't go into the astonishing amount of really bad renditions of the Christ Child I have stumbled across in such paintings either, by artists of great talent.)

Sociological aside: The Mediterranean area had a widespread tradition of a mother-goddess with a son-consort at the time of Jesus. The artistic tradition of depicting a mother-goddess with a smaller son-consort was well-established, and artists depicting Mary and Jesus naturally went for a similar treatment. Some have felt that the emphasis on Mary was an attempt to reunite the mother-goddess tradition with the all-male trinity. Sociological speculation claims Mary's prominence in Christian tradition (despite the "officially" minor role she has in relation to Jesus) is a redressing of the excessively patriarchal Hebrew tradition. It is perhaps worth noting that there are many more sightings of Mary than there are of Jesus; regardless of her small part in the Bible compared to her son, it seems that this is a sign of her importance to the psyche.

As to Joseph looking smaller and ugly, I do not see this as too terribly profound. Of course he'll get second billing; he's not really all that important. He was also *much* older than Mary and was never claimed to be particularly attractive, whereas Mary was a beautiful young maiden. Besides, who's going to depict the mother of God as anything less than as stunningly beautiful as you can paint?

Several of those Holy paintings actually should, in my opinion, be destroyed because of the ugliness.

::sputter:: I hope that was hyperbole. Sure, let's destroy pieces of our artistic history because we think they look ugly now. Even if they don't look all that great to you, they may have been revolutionary advancements during their time. Toss out a link to one of these "ugly" paintings and I'll explain its history and artistic merit.

Plus, I probably do understand the 'Holy Relic' concept, but find it mildly barbaric. As I understand it, each Catholic Church has a relic in the alter. Would that not tend to encourage the worship of the relic instead of God?

Does saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag make your allegiance to the flag instead of to our country? Give Catholics credit for knowing that they are supposed to worship God, at least, and cannot be confused by simply having a relic in an altar.

------------------
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can't see Her.

[tracer]

milroyj wrote:

quote:
(The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

Do you have a cite for that idiotic statement? No, didn't think so.

Well, if the majority of historical Mafia figures were Italian, and the majority of Italians are Catholic....

[Bricker]

I agree that the majority of Mafia members are probably Catholic.

But I disagree that the reason they are Catholic is their deisre of a life of crime followed by death-bed forgiveness. The reason they are mostly Catholic, as was pointed out above, is that if you accept that most Mafia members are Italian, you're drawing from a population that is overwhelmingly Catholic.

- Rick

[Rainbowcsr]

To those of you who have responded without rancor and sarcasm, I thank you, for obviously you display brains.

The Discovery channel is not known for putting on slanted or distorted programs, being mainly there for educational purposes. I have so far seen several 'who killed Kennedy' episodes, with each one pointing the finger at someone else -- the government -- the mob -- the Cubans. All got equal time, leaving us to figure out what really happened -- aside from the common fact that someone powerful deliberately screwed up the autopsy and had two people killed.

Concerning art. I might not know antiquity from beans, but I know what I like and I came to the conclusion years ago that artists in the first few centuries certainly could paint great background scenery but sucked at painting people. Either that, or we had some really strange looking ancestors back then. In the area of religious paintings, I am somewhat surprised that churches would even accept some of the ugly paintings concerning the baby Jesus and display them. Not just the Catholic Church either. Just because it is old doesn't mean, to me anyhow, that it is good or even worth holding on to.

But then, I recently observed an artists work who likes using massive chunks of rolled steel to make vast forms with. I thought the best work was the newly delivered, gray-black slabs. The balanced, extensive, rusty things he put together, to me, sucked. At least he could have coated them with something to show the beauty of the metal and not the brownish, dusty rust. I can find that in any junk yard.

Joseph seems to have been pretty much ignored in the Christian religion, though he was the protector and provider for both Mary and Jesus for some years and, obviously, a good all round guy. Lately I found out that there are masses of Gospels that never made it into the Bible, including the Gospel of Mary Magadline -- who turns out to have been quite revered after all. I wonder if there is a Gospel of Joseph? The way he is portrayed was mentioned on a show concerning works of religious art by the curator of a museum, which caught my attention.

Does the Catholic Church have the priority on exorcisms? Every time I read of one, it is being done by a priest -- or do Catholics seem to be the most harassed by 'demon' possession? I don't recall there being any Protestant exorcists, even when it come to ridding a place of 'ghosts'.

I haven't even heard of any Jewish ones -- don't they have possession problems?



------------------
What? Me worry?'

[Northern Piper]

Nu Vo Da Da,

I don't think that the Great Schism affects the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession - it was a dispute about who would be Pope, but there was no doubt that the various candidates for Pope had all been properly ordained as priests and bishops. Eventually, it ended when both camps settled on an agreeable compromise candidate for Pope, Martin V.

With respect to Charlemagne: he was actively involved in reforms of the Western Church, and I think may have contributed to the addition of the "Filioque" passage to the Nicene Creed, which in turn contributed to the Schism with the Eastern Church.

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Nightingale]

Concerning the depiction of Joseph in various and sundry works of art: could it be that he is painted in darker colors and left in the background because Mary and the Christ child are considered to be divine, and Joseph merely a man? As for Mary and the Christ child being ugly. . . I guess that's just a matter of personal preference.

------------------
"There are more things you don't know than there are things that I do know. I despair of the imbalance." -- Dr. Morgenes, The Dragonbone Chair

[doreen]

I can understand the lure for becoming Catholic, for I think it is the only Christian religion which virtually guarantees one a ticket into heaven upon confessing one's sins or dying with the last rites even if one is a member of the Mafia and slaughtered a couple of hundred people. (The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

Catholicism does not guarantee even absolution, much less heaven, based on confession or last rites.Walking into a confessional or being annointed is not what gains absolution, repentance does.

As for the section about the Mafia: A. Common knowledge, B. pointed out in two documentaries concerning the Mafia on the Discovery Channel in 1998. As was stated : 'most Mafia members are Catholic because they know that they can run business as usual, repent their sins on their death beds and be absolved.

As for most Mafia members being nominally Catholic, yeah,probably, but practicing is another story.Is that a direct quote from the documentary?If so, I suspect Discovery messed it up. It would make far more sense to say that they believe they can run business as usual, repent and be absolved _because_they are Catholic ( not that I believe that) than the other way around. After all, if you're choosing a religion based on what it teaches about getting into heaven, there are at least a couple that teach that once you accept Jesus as your savior,you will go to heaven, regardless of what you do, with no requirement for repentance.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by Rainbowcsr:
'most Mafia members are Catholic because they know that they can run business as usual, repent their sins on their death beds and be absolved.

By Catholic doctrine, you are only absolved of your sins if you are honestly repentant. If you say you are simply to avoid Devine Retrobution, you're not going to win. You cannot lie to God.

That's not to say that some - or even many - I wouldn't go so far as to say most - Catholics believe that a Death-bed confession, no matter how half-assed or insincere, will get them past St Peter, but please don't present it as Catholic Doctrine because of a Discovery Channel special on the Mob.

Interestingly, the only time I've ever seen 'No matter what sin you commit, or if you're sorry about it, if you're one of us, you can still go to Heaven' it was in a tract by the ANTI-Catholic Jack Chick. 'The Killer' I believe it was called. Unfortunately, chick.com isn't responding, so I can't provide a link to it. :/



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[tomndebb]

Gee, what a day to get stuck away from this Forum.

Don't worry, I'm not going to repeat all the good stuff that has already been posted.

A couple of points that have slipped through the general discussion:

Since the bible states not to worship any graven images, who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary?

The issue of actually worshipping Mary and the saints has been dealt with (we don't, although there are people who will fight with us over some terminology). The other issue regarding graven images is a little more complex (although it is great fodder for Jack Chick and other haters).

The Jewish Law strictly forbade any graven images and adherence to that law became a central point of Jewish culture. As Christianity spread out into Gentile lands, it encountered people who did not have the same cultural revulsion to statues. It was clear to the various Greeks, Romans, Libyans, Spaniards, Gauls, etc. that they were not actually worshipping the statues, but the gods that the statues represented. As these people converted to Christianity, they matched their own ideas of representational art up against the Jewish Law and decided that since they were not actually worshipping the statue, they were not in violation of the Law. At different times through the history of Christianity, reformers have reviewed the commandments and decided that the Church had gone astray by allowing statues. The Catholic Church has responded by pointing out the narrower understanding of worshipping idols and has shrugged off the complaints. It is fair to disagree with the Catholic position. It is innaccurate to claim that Catholics worship either the saints or the statues. It is vile calumny to suggest that (as I read recently) some cabal of RCC leaders plotted to "remove" the commandment for the purpose of leading the people astray.

(I will freely concede that there are particular Catholics whose veneration of the saints comes a lot closer to my definition of adoration, however, that is still not the position of Church teaching.)

Who also decided that Catholic Priests should have the power to forgive anyone their sins prior to death no matter what they have done in life?

Most of the particulars have been addressed on this point. Two that have not (unless I missed them):
By Catholic interpretation of Scripture, Jesus authorized priests (or the designated successors to the disciples) to forgive sins when he told them "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Jn 20:23 (RSV).

In addition, the Church sees the forgiveness that occurs in the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance/Confession as a reconciliation between the individual and the Body of Christ (the entire Christian community). The Church holds that if a person is truly sorry for their sin(s), God forgives them at the time they repent, but to be reconciled to the whole Church so as to participate fully in the Church, one makes the physical (and public) act of going to confession. The confession does not have to be bruted about for anyone to hear, but the act is public in the sense that the person has approached the visible representative of the community to make that confession.

The birth control issue is one that is contentious even within the RCC. A fairly distinguished group of theologians, pastors, and lay people who worked with families and family issues was called together to make a recommendation regarding contraception in light of the new technology of the Pill and changes to some other forms. Paul VI took much of their presentation under consideration, but promulgated an encyclical that came to a quite different conclusion than the panel had reached. Depending on your perspective, either Paul VI or the Holy Spirit made the decision. (It was certainly not imposed by any group within the RCC.)

------------------
Tom~

[milroyj]

tracer said:

Well, if the majority of historical Mafia figures were Italian, and the majority of Italians are Catholic....

I supose you think the majorityof African-Americans like watermelon, too.

Bigotry against any group is just wrong.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Not much I can add to this debate, y'all seem to be doing a fine job of defending my faith for me.

A note on the birth control issue- I've heard some conversion testimonies by people who have converted to Catholocism who swear their sex lives got a whole lot better once they stopped using artificial birth control.

Seems they feel that if a couple isn't open to the possibility of conceiving a child when they make love, they're holding back something very vital from one another...

------------------
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side." --- Han Solo

[Rainbowcsr]

OK. Excellent information so far -- and NO NAME CALLING YET!

Birth control: With the general population booming and feeding them becoming a problem, when the general governments of the various nations leap at viable birth control, it seems odd that the Pope disagrees. Many other forms of the Christian Religion feel that too many people tend to follow the 'go forth and multiply' section of the Bible far too literally. If there was no artificial birth control, we could, quite literally, breed ourselves out of our food supply and directly into major wars.

Plus, how is it that many of the passages quoted by you respondents seem not to be in the standard Bible and why are there two generally accepted Bibles? One for non-Catholics and one for Catholics. I'm not the world greatest authority on the Bible, but over the years I have read and heard many a passage.

Concerning religious paintings: I wish I could give you a link to some because I have looked at some portraits of the Madonna and Child where Jesus is positively ugly and almost looks sinister while Mary Herself seems to be painted by an amateur. But then, I've also seen two paintings of a Monarch of England where in one he looks like Plasticman (old comic book character) with his chin and lower jaw stretched very much out of shape and in another, he looks like a regular guy.

WHAT! No comments on exorcisms?

------------------
What? Me worry?'

[2sense]

Hi Rainbowcsr,

Just putting in my 2 cents.

About Joseph:

Originally posted by Gaudere:

As to Joseph looking smaller and ugly, I do not see this as too terribly profound. Of course he'll get second billing; he's not really all that important. He was also *much* older than Mary and was never claimed to be particularly attractive, whereas Mary was a beautiful young maiden.

I will not disagree with Gaudere's assertions. (He's a Moderator after all.)
But I have read books which do question traditional Church answers.

The arguments are as follows.

1. Joseph was portrayed in this manner because he was problamatical for the Church.

Jesus is called the Son of David.

So the Church needed Joseph to establish the link to David.

But Catholics deny Joseph ever "knew" Mary.

The argument points out this contradiction.

Also the argument denies that Mary was a maiden.

It says this is a translation error in our English Bibles.

This argument goes like this.
Aramaic bethulah means virgin.
Aramaic almah means unmarried woman.

The word used in the gospels was almah.
NOTE: I don't speak Aramaic.

So the argument is that Joseph, descended from the line of Davidian kings, knocks up Mary after they are engaged, but before the marriage.
NOTE: I know nothing about ancient jewish marriage customs.

Also these books claim the office of Bishop come directly from the jewish priesthood.

FTR- I'm refering to...
------Blodline of the Holy Grail. by Lawrence Gardner.
------Jesus the Man. by Barbara Theiring.

I have also read somewhere else that Peter maybe wasn't the first Bishop of Rome. That St. Linus was.
Apparently Peter's name is missing from some early papal lists.
NOTE: again I have no idea whether this is true or not.

Another interesting mistranslation in English Bibles.

Moses did not part the Red Sea.

Moses parted the Sea of Reeds.
(an unknown location}

Aparently an error crept in when the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek around 400 BCE.

This one is better substantiated.
I got it from: Don't Know Much About the Bible. by Kenneth C. Davis.

Anyway I hope I haven't helped confuse the issue for everyone.


Rainbowcsr, I have copies of all these works if you have (brief) questions about them.

---------------------------------------------
God said to Abraham" Kill me a son."
Abe said" Man, you must be putting me on..."

Bob Dylan.

[Nu Vo Da Da]

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?

As suggested in a post above, Christ is said to have declared Peter the first Pope, leaving him in charge of the Church on Earth. When the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, they became the first bishops of the Church. Each succeeding bishop was ordained by the laying hands on of a previous bishop, and all of these to Christ. So in a sense, if I shake my bishop's hand, I can trace that touch back through thousands of men, all the way to Christ.

What about the Great Schism?

and Chalamain=Charlamagne? I don't know much about him deciding church doctrine though.

[milroyj]

As for the section about the Mafia: A. Common knowledge, B. pointed out in two documentaries concerning the Mafia on the Discovery Channel in 1998. As was stated : 'most Mafia members are Catholic because they know that they can run business as usual, repent their sins on their death beds and be absolved.

[sarcasm on]I'd bet that would have been news to "Bugsy" Siegel and Meyer Lansky!

Yes, Virginia, if it's on cable TV, it must be true!

[sarcasm off]

As for the rest of your post, Bricker and others have already explained that Catholics don't worship Mary or relics. What's your agenda here?

[Gilligan]

Now I’m confused. Is Rainbowcsr asserting that the existence of poorly done artwork by Catholic artists is somehow a case against the Church’s validity? Some of the most beautiful works I’ve seen are representations of the Buddha. Should we all become Buddhists?

[Northern Piper]

Mino correction to my point no. 1, concerning the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches: It wasn't the Pope who anathematised the East, it was Cardinal Humbert, his delegate to a conference at Constantinople in 1054, which had been intended to try to patch things up.

When the conference failed, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Easterns, and Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematized the Latins in return.

I believe that Pope John Paul II and the current Patriarch have lifted the excommunications and anathemas, as a gesture towards reconciliation - but don't have a cite for that.

::::grumble, grumble grumble - always check references - grumble, grumble, grumble::::

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Spoke]

Me, I'm an atheist, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

However, it sure seems to me like a lot of Catholics are doing some serious hair splitting on the distinction between "veneration" and "adoration". In fact, I'm not so sure this isn't a distinction without a difference. I've known a lot of Catholics who seem to stride boldly across that "veneration"/"adoration" line. (If such a line exists.)

(Isn't there some ongoing controversy within the Church over the so-called "cult of Mary". Seems like I read an article in one of the news magazines a while back about the concern that some factions within the church were crossing the line into "worship" of Mary. Don't recall all the details of the squabble, so I will accept correction if I am misinformed.)

It also seems like hair-splitting to me to have a statue (or "graven image"), but then to take the position that you are not really worshipping the statue, but the being it represents. Seems like an awfully fine line to walk, especially considering the attention that is lavished on these statues in practice. (The Black Madonna of Montserat comes to mind.)

Hey, I do not intend to attack your faith (makes no difference to me what you believe, really), but I do see some issues here.

------------------
--In France I'm considered a genius.

[Rainbowcsr]

When I was a kid and in Boy Scouts, we all met at a Methodist Church, in one of the class rooms. Scout Sunday came about, where all of the Boy Scouts would wear their uniforms to church, and most would attend services at the church which sponsored them. For us, that would have been the Methodist Church -- no matter which one we normally went to.

A friend of mine and a fellow scout was Catholic and I was quite surprised to find out that he could not attend. Being curious, I asked why and discovered that he was not allowed by the Church to attend services at any other church not Catholic.

Is this true? I recall at first, not knowing about this, joking with him and telling him he WAS going to attend services at the Methodist church and he actually got irritated over it. Later I found out the reason.

Now, not being Catholic, I'm used to being able to attend any church of any other sect I choose without any form of 'revenge.' I can even attend services at a Jewish Temple or a Muslim one.

Now, to me, restricting one to one's own particular church sounds like a form of control and/or prevention of getting other ideas.

------------------
What? Me worry?'

[Gilligan]

I don’t remember a rule that Catholics can’t attend other churches’ services, although they would probably not be allowed to participate in the actual rituals, such as taking another’s communion. When I was a kid in Catholic school (1960’s), we were encouraged to learn about other religions, as respectful guests. We held mock Seders at Passover, for example. Was your friend just forbidden by his parents, perhaps, who might have been mistaken about what the Church allows?

[tomndebb]

how is it that many of the passages quoted by you respondents seem not to be in the standard Bible

What book do you call the "standard" bible?

The Authorized or King James Version that was translated using the lofty language of Shakespeare in order to "elevate" the word of God in the highest manner, but had to resort to using the Latin Vulgate for much of its source because the original Greek and Hebrew versions were not available to the English translators? The Douai-Rheims version that was translated exclusively from the Latin Vulgate (as the version of Scripture "approved" by the Catholic Church)? The Revised Standard Version, that started from the basis of the KJV, but went back to original Greek and Hebrew sources to correct errors and clarify language from the KJV? The whole list of bibles published since the 1960's, each using a different scholarly team to tackle the Scripture in the original languages, but attempting to translate them into language that is more easily accessible to people in Great britain, or Canada, or the U.S., (or to be equally accessible to all those various English dialects simultaneously)?

To understand the whys and wherefores of the various translations, you have to pick up each one and read its Introduction. We have numerous translations because people have looked at existing translations and have found them wanting. That's people for you.

A separate issue is the Catholic Bible vs the Protestant Bible. Basically, the early Christians had access to a large amount of Jewish literature, some of is clearly Scripture, some of it inspirational, but not necessarily regarded as the Word of God. Those early Christians chose to include a number of the not-yet-scriptural books among the books that they considered Scripture. Around 100 CE, Jewish scholars convened at Jamnia to deal with the issue of which books were truly Scripture for the Jewish Canon. Most of the books the Christians were using were included (the Christians were coming from the same understanding, initially), but they also excluded several books that the Christians had claimed as Scripture. Since, by that time, the 65-year-old Christian cult was clearly separate from Judaism, neither side paid much attention to the other side's views. Leap ahead 1400 years. Luther has become the most recent (and first successful) "reformer" of the RCC. Once he has broken with Rome, he takes the time to re-evaluate all of Rome's teachings. He compares the Old Testament to Jewish Scripture and asks "Why do we have books that the Jews do not consider Scripture?" The answer he arrives at is that it is a mistake, and he sets those books aside as the Apocrypha (the "hidden" books). Now, he is not simply being contrary here. Catholic scholars had also noted the same discrepancy between Jewish and Christian Scripture and had listed those same books separately, calling them Deutero-canonical (basically second-tier canon) and there had been discussion about whether some of them should be removed from the canon. Once Luther demanded that they all be chucked out, the RCC demanded that they all be kept in, so there the matter stands.

------------------
Tom~

[andros]

Rainbowcsr:

Concerning religious paintings: I wish I could give you a link

I do too. Until you can, I think the "issue" of ugly paintings is irrelevant, don't you?

how is it that many of the passages quoted by you respondents seem not to be in the standard Bible and why are there two generally accepted Bibles?

Er, huh? What, pray, is the "standard Bible?" Check the bookshelves, you'll find dozens of translations. Many of them are much more accurate translations than the good ol' KJV.

No comments on exorcisms?

Other than it seems you watch too many movies? Excorcisms are not at all common, public belief to the contrary. And yes, there have been Jewish excorcisms.
2sense:Gaudere is a woman, and her authority stems not from being a moderator, but from being an expert on art and painting.

But Catholics deny Joseph ever "knew" Mary.

AFAIK, this is not true. Mary had other children by Joseph, after Jesus. And the contextual meanings of bethulah and almah have been debated for centuries--in fact there are entire books written about them.
Spoke:

However, it sure seems to me like a lot of Catholics are doing some serious hair splitting on the distinction between "veneration" and "adoration".

That's as may be, but as Tom pointed out, there is a difference between dogma and practice. While some Catholics might cross the line, the Catholic Church is pretty clearly on the side of veneration and prayers of intercession rather than that of worship.

As a side note, I'm reading Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles (highly recommended, especially for historical fiction fans). Whyte does a very nice job of discussing the rise of papal authority and monasticism as in opposition to Pelaigian Heresy (many elements of which were echoes in the Protestant Reformation) from a secular perspective. Definitely worth the read.

-andros-

[Hardwood Paneling]

Maybe I can help a bit.

On exorcism:

By Rainbowcsr at posted 03-26-2000 04:59 PM

Does the Catholic Church have the priority on exorcisms? Every time I read of one, it is being done by a priest -- or do Catholics seem to be the most harassed by 'demon' possession? I don't recall there being any Protestant exorcists, even when it come to ridding a place of 'ghosts'.

I grew up Protestant, and joined the RCC about 7 years ago. Catholics certainly have no monopoly on exorcism, but nobody else that I know of calls it “exorcism”. As a Protestant, I simply called it “driving out evil spirits” or some such. And I saw it happen a lot more in the Protestant church than I see now, as a Catholic.

And to spoke-, on the hairsplitting between veneration and adoration:

The hair being split is not between veneration and adoration, but between veneration/adoration and worship. To venerate is to say “hey, you’re really great, I admire you and strive to be like you” but to worship is to say “you are God, holy, divine Lord…” You will never (I hope) hear a Catholic say “Mary is Lord!”, because she ain’t. She is special, filled with grace, and has been blessed beyond measure. The “Blessed Virgin” can help us by interceding with her Son, but she cannot save us.

As a Protestant-then-Catholic, the worship of Mary has been a tricky question for me, because I thought I saw worship of Mary like you do. Today, however, everyone I know that exhibits that behavior (e.g., dedication to the Rosary, pilgrimages to visitation sites, etc.) has me convinced that they are Jesus-centered, and see Mary as more of an ally, a perfect friend.

On statues and paintings in churches:

I don’t see the statues as any different than the pictures of loved ones hanging in my family room. Catholics don’t worship the icons, and unless it’s a statue of Christ, they don’t worship the being it represents, either.

I agree that is can seem like a fine line to tread, but it’s an important one, and clearly marked. Much like the yellow line in the road!

[Gilligan]

I’ll offer a guess as to the “ugly” paintings; Gaudere will correct me if wrong. It seems like you think this particular category of religious art is supposed to be “artistic” or something. You are judging it in modern terms of art. I don’t mean you’re judging it by modern artistic standards, but by a modern value system of what art is supposed to be. “Art for art’s sake” is a relatively recent notion. Medieval artists weren’t trying to “express themselves”; they were doing a job, same as if they were digging moats. They were hired by the Church, or the Church’s managers, on the basis of what talent they had, to produce this art as a means of inspiring an illiterate population. It didn’t really matter whether the art was beautiful or not, as long as it got the message across, by showing Mary and Jesus in a good light. If Joseph was added at all, it was probably for a sense of balance. Kinda reminds me of the MP sketch that has the Pope arguing with Michaelangelo about his Last Supper with three Christs. “It works, mate!”

[voltaire]

Plus, how is it that many of the passages quoted by you respondents seem not to be in the standard Bible and why are there two generally accepted Bibles? One for non-Catholics and one for Catholics.

Rainbowcsr:

I'm seeing a pattern in your posts insinuating that the Catholic church is a revision of Christianity. If that's not your intent, I apologize for misinterpreting you.
However, if it IS your position that Catholicism uses something other than the "standard bible" I suggest that you do some research. You will find that it is all of the other Christian religions that are revisions on the original Christian religion, which is Catholicism. You should be asking questions regarding who gave those other religions the authority to determine their rituals, practices, and traditions.

Most Catholics I know pray mostly to Mary,
though in the Bible, Jesus is supposed to intercede for us when we sin.

You must not know those Catholics or their religion very well. Perhaps you should review the words of the 'Hail Mary' since that's obviously what you're referring to.

BTW, although I was brought up Catholic, I am in no way religious whatsoever. I urge you to do research only for the purpose of fighting your own ignorance, since that's what this board is all about. If your not interested enough to do your own research, you may want to ask yourself why you're interested at all.

[mipsman]

Something seems incongruous,Rainbowcsr. You ask valid questions but bring in ignorant assumptions or poorly understood second hand anecdotes. It is like somebody asking how a photon's quantum spin is affected by its movement through the ether. One explanation is that you are intelligent but poorly educated. The other explanation is that you are a bigoted asshole. So much for avoiding the name calling.

[Bricker]

Is this of any use?

Rainbowcsr, having now read all the information above... can you answer these questions for me?

Do Catholics worship Mary?
Is there a rule that forbids Catholics from attending other religious services?
Who decided that the Catholic Church should be against birth control?

- Rick

[Gaudere]

So much for avoiding the name calling.

[Moderator Hat ON]

You should seriously consider avoiding the name-calling, at least in GD, lest you bring the Wrath of Gaud on your head. The Pit is over thataway if you feel you must fling insults. When you're in GD, please keep it reasonably civil.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Northern Piper]

andros,

the issue of Mary & Joseph's sexual relations was thrashed out in Jesus' Siblings and Virgin Birth. Consensus seemed to be that for the RC Church, doctrine is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. It's not a view shared by Protestant churches.

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Northern Piper]

voltaire,

I think the Orthodox churches would disagree with your statement: "You will find that it is all of the other Christian religions that are revisions on the original Christian religion, which is Catholicism."

The western, Latin branch and the eastern, Greek branch of the church grew up simultaneously. There are other eastern churches, such as the Coptic church, that are not derived from the western church.

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Rainbowcsr]

I'm not insinuating anything. I don't insinuate - but rather state, accuse or point out.

Standard Bible: I guess the Kings James Version, which seems the most common one in use today.

On art: I assume you are correct, in that whoever had a mollycodum of talent painted the religious pictures to get the point across. Having seen many works from earlier centuries, including those where the more important the person, the bigger his portrait or image in a painting -- which kind of threw the scale of things all to heck -- I can only assume that genuine talent was very primitive back then. Still, I find it offensive personally to find pictures on display which portray the Christ Child as ugly and sometimes even evil looking and find, personally again, no reason for them to be there.

Bricker asks: Is this of any use?
Rainbowcsr, having now read all the information above ... can you answer these questions for me?

Do Catholics worship Mary?
Is there a rule that prohibits Catholics from attending other religious services?
Who decided that the Catholic Church should be against birth control?

75% say they do not worship Mary, 25% suggest that it is possible. Personal observation on my own suggests that over 50% actually do worship Mary.

There is a rule that prevents Catholics from attending other religious services.

The Church decided against birth control.

There appears to be a Bible separate from the Protestant one used exclusively by Catholics.

There also, in my own opinion, seems to be a massive amount of control over the worshipers of the Catholic religion by the Pope and corresponding Priests of all levels.

There seems to be a general acceptance of written texts by inspired or Holy men as virtual law in many areas without much consideration to the known fact that inspired religious 'fanatics' tend to write down the 'word' as they would often like it to be. (This is also found in various other religions.)

The 'missing' texts, gospels, chapters and possibly the never corrected translation of the basic Bible probably accounts for the many discrepancies noted in it today.

Catholicism is said to be the 'Original Church' but I thought the Baptist sect founded by John the Baptist was supposedly the original one. Plus, to make it more confusing, Jesus was a Jew, something most Christians seem to want to ignore. The original church was Jewish.

mipsman: So much for an intelligent exchange of ideas without bias.

Interesting discovery: Jesus apparently had siblings, which are not mentioned in the Protestant religions.

Exorcisms: After reading several books on the subject, some years back, watching several documentaries, I observed that the Catholic Religion seems to have the most need for them, plus have an extensive ritual to go with it. Most Protestant ministers in 'casting out devils' do not seem to have such an extensive ritual to follow, though, with the Evangelist sect, it is real hard to tell if what they are doing is factual, farce, or anything even like exorcism. I've seen priests exorcise a fishing boat, but never a Baptist minister.

Most other forms of the Christian religion have adapted with the times, but the Catholic religion seems having a hard time doing so. There is no sense in ranting about corruption in the Catholic line, marked in historical texts, because there is major corruption in the Protestant sections also. (Television ministries come to mind.)

A friend of mine is Catholic, but excommunicated because he divorced his first wife. I find it interesting that the Catholic Church will virtually throw out someone who is not willing to remain in an unhappy marriage. I find it even more interesting that he still goes to church, knowing that he is not considered a 'good' Catholic.

Because I'm originally Methodist, I've been able to get around and examine various forms of this sect of the Christian Religion. The only one I've not looked at real closely is Catholicism. It caught my attention some time back that every time there is a 'religious' sign, mainly Catholics see it (and I'm not talking about the potato shaped like Jesus' face found in Idaho by some farm lady who never managed to get past the second grade). From Mexico, to South America, to Italy, through America, it seems that anyone who 'sees' the Virgin Mary is Catholic.

So, I'm asking, preferring not to go into 'company sanctioned' texts until later. I did check out the Catholic site following the link given in this board and came to the conclusion that it's the 'company' line. It raised almost as many questions as it answered.

I previously stated that I hold to 'my own set form of religion' because I found flaws and questions among the many fragmented sects I visited. Ranging from 'Hellfire Baptists' to 'Moderate Methodists' to a section of the Jewish Religion which believes that Christ was the Son of God.'

I have a major problem with richly ornate churches containing alters of gold, valuable works of art and made of the finest marble and stones, who are supposed to look after the poor and starving, the sick and the down trodden and have to beg money from others to do so. The selling of a work of art could probably feed thousands of poor for a week.

I have no problem with churches containing wonderful works like the mysterious, hand made spiral staircase, gold plated crosses and so on but some churches I have seen must have cost millions to build and the Vatican alone must cost millions to maintain.

So, I'm talking to people like you in order to get the general opinions, beliefs and attitudes. If you find me obnoxious, then don't reply. Any 'flaws' I find with the Catholic church, I have found in other churches.

Even in other religions. A quote from a Muslim, when asked if drinking was against his religion, why was he drinking in a bar. He pointed to the roof overhead and said 'What Allah does not see, he does not know about.'

Plus, why do certain religions see more Holy apparitions than others and why do certain ones seem to have to remove more demons than others? Why do some restrict their members from freely learning about other religions and other ones not care? Who decided to present only certain sections of the Holy Scriptures to the general public, while other religions seem to allow anyone to learn what they want? Why do some religions adapt with time and others not?

Yet, as I stated before, almost all, if not all, of the current powerful religions in the world have many, many similarities, which indicates to me the potential of a common source.

Knowing mankind's penchant for power over other men, I wonder how much of the various religions have been bent into their current forms to keep a small sect of each in power over millions?

It has happened before. It goes on even today in some areas.

I also have never approved of the 'missionary' way of 'saving souls' by virtually beating native populations over the heads with the form of religion in favor by the advanced nations stealing their lands.


------------------
What? Me worry?'

[2sense]

Gaudere,

I apologise wholeheartedly.

I would forgive you if you assumed I was a woman.
But I understand my crime was much more heinous.

It was a newbie mistake. I actually thought your name was David B. Gaudere.


________________________________Salaam

[2sense]

I have a question for anyone.

What about other Christian Holy Books?

I'm familiar with tha Apocrapha.

But what about the Orthodox Church.
What canon do they use?

And I've heard of some Ethiopic Holy Books.
ie The Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch.

Any other ancient holy books I'm leaving out.


Thanx in advance for curing my ignorance.

___________________________________Peace

[Sterra]

hmm i dont remember where but i think the pope was going to "bring in" some mary worshipping religion... but that was like a year ago so i dont remember the details

[tomndebb]

75% say they do not worship Mary, 25% suggest that it is possible. Personal observation on my own suggests that over 50% actually do worship Mary.

There is a rule that prevents Catholics from attending other religious services.

The Church decided against birth control.

1) Your observations regarding "Mary worship" do not correspond at all with mine. I think this point is not worth fighting over if you're simply curious. We disagree.

2) No. See my post, above. (You are reading the responses, yes?) How many years ago was this Boy Scout saying he was forbidden to go to the Methodist church? And was there an opportunity for him to go to mas as well as going with the troop?)

3) What do you mean by "the church" and who was involved? Are you thinking that there was a cabal of "deciders"? I'm not sure this is worth fighting over, but your answer does not clearly indicate that you are reading the responses.

Catholicism is said to be the 'Original Church' but I thought the Baptist sect founded by John the Baptist was supposedly the original one. Plus, to make it more confusing, Jesus was a Jew, something most Christians seem to want to ignore. The original church was Jewish.

The Baptists (or their Anabaptist forbears) arose in the sixteenth century from various followers of (but not adherents to) the preachings of Calvin. John the Baptist was a solitary preacher who had some followers, but there is no indication that they ever organized into any specific group. After John was beheaded, they either became followers of Jesus or (more likely) returned to their regularly scheduled Jewish faith.

No serious Christian forgets that Jesus was a devout Jew. (A few twits have recently twisted various statements in the Epistles to indicate that they don't realize what that means.) There is also a shameful record within Christianity of persecuting Jews, including using the abhorent epithet "Christ-killer." Whether most Christians, today, are aware or unaware of Jesus as a Jew, the official statements of Catholicism certainly recognize that fact.

The claim that the Catholic Church was the "original" Christian Church relies on the Catholics looking back through history and claiming the various bishops of the early church, especially, Peter and the bishops of Rome. History is much more complex than a simple statement that so-and-so-was first can support. I will not attempt to lay out that entire historical record, here, but I would say that the RCC has as good a claim as anyone to have roots that go back to the beginning. The Orthodox obviously have as good a claim, although Catholics and Orthodox can fight over which group broke with the "real" historical line from Jesus. (Other groups can get in here to fight, too, of course.)

As to exorcisms: the RCC has a long tradition of expressing its faith in ritual. This means that if you want to find a method (i.e., ritual) to perform an exorcism, the RCC is the place to go, simply because they have documented the ones they use. A number of Protestant denominations reject (what they perceive as empty) ritual and so, you can't go to them to find that information. In fact, there are Protestant denominations that are much more likely than the RCC to concern themselves with casting out demons. The fact that the RCC has a book with rituals does not make them the leader in exorcism, it makes them the leader in ritual.



------------------
Tom~

[tomndebb]

I asked why and discovered that he was not allowed by the Church to attend services at any other church not Catholic.

The rules about worshipping in a non-Catholic Church are considerably revised or relaxed since Vatican II (although not everyone has gotten the word and not everyone understands the differences).

The discipline of the RCC regarding "Keep Holy the Lord's Day" is to worship at mass whenever possible. (Sailors on long voyages with no chaplains and people in remote areas with few priests (such as Seattle) are obviously exempt.) Going to a different religious service instead of a Catholic mass would be considered a violation of this rule.

Prior to the ecumenical movement that coincided with Vatican II, the RCC was at extreme loggerheads with the "heretical" Protestants and even attending a Protestant service in addition to attending mass was a violation of the rules. Now, it would not be considered improper to worship with other believers, provided that nothing in the other service contradicts Catholic teaching and provided that worshipping at the other service was not a substitute for worshipping at mass. (Personal recollections of Father A agreeing to this activity or Father B condemning that activity are not relative to this discussion. I'm mentioning the general rules, not how different humans have decided to interpret them based on their education and the specific situation they are addressing. The Catholic Church is not nearly the granite monolith that it appears to outsiders and there is always disagreement and contradictory understandings found within it.)

------------------
Tom~

[Bricker]

Rainbowcsr,

I guess I'm a little confused.

I'm not sure I understand why you'd ask questions if you're unwilling to accept the answers.

As to the "worshipping Mary" business, I'll admit that to the casual observer, it may look a lot like that, and perhaps even the uneducated Catholic may be doing that. But it is still beyond any question or doubt that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church holds definitively that only God is worshipped, not Mary. Do you understand this?

As to Catholics attending other religious services, there is no rule prohibiting that. This has been true since Vatican II in the early 1960s. Again, do you understand this? If you contend otherwise -- where is your evidence? Cite the rule!

On to a new point:

A friend of mine is Catholic, but excommunicated because he divorced his first wife. I find it interesting that the Catholic Church will virtually throw out someone who is not willing to remain in an unhappy marriage. I find it even more interesting that he still goes to church, knowing that he is not considered a 'good' Catholic.

No.

No, no, no.

There is no penalty of excommunicattion for divorce. Your friend is not excommunicated. What evidence led you to believe that he was?

It's possible your friend may not be in a state of grace. That would mean that while he's more than welcome to attend church, he's not supposed to receive the sacraments.

But being divorced does not even imply that he's not in a state of grace. It is perfectly possible to be divorced and be a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.

The problem arises only if your friend has remarried outside the church. In this case, he would not be in a state of grace, because the church contends that the first marriage is still valid ("...til death do us part," after all) and so the second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous relationship.

In no event does that give rise to excommunication. Even participation in an "second marriage" does not cause one to be excommunicated. Got it? No excomunication for this!

Frankly, what I find irritating here is your questions, which assume the truth of certain propositions. You start out saying that your friend is excommunicated. How dare you?

- Rick

[Rainbowcsr]

On the subject of my friend:

You start out saying that your friend is excommunicated. How dare you?

Don't have a cow, man!

I might have the terminology wrong, but he, himself told me that he was excommunicated because of his divorce. He is remarried and she is Catholic also.

On the subject of the scout: This was back in the 1960s. The kid in mention was forbidden to attend the church but Scout Sunday was held in his Catholic Church also so he went there. OK, I understand that things have changed.

On the subject of birth control: By 'the church' I mean the Catholic Church and the ruling powers within it of the time.

Mary Worship: Accepted, though in the Protestant sects one is usually told to pray through Jesus for He is supposed to intercede for us. Most pray directly to God. There is no list of various Saints or others to pray to nor to work specific miracles. To us, having various holy people to contact for specific tasks seems like usurping Jesus' power. Like, well, I don't know the various Saints, but there is one usually kept in cars I guess to protect travelers, one to heal the sick, one for children, one for animals and so on. I get your point, though.

On the subject of which church or sect was first: I guess we'll never really know.

(I never paid much attention to the term 'Protestant' until currently, because it is, to us, pronounced 'prod-es-tant.' To pronounce it like it is spelled, is protest-ant. To protest. Interesting.)

[Gaudere]

Bricker, what circumstances *do* give rise to excommunication? My mother was RCC as a child, but she always told me she was excommunicated for marrying my father, who was divorced (which I suppose makes my brother and me little bastards in the eyes of the Catholic Church. ). Is excommunication perhaps something they were a little more free with 40 years ago?

On art: I assume you are correct, in that whoever had a mollycodum of talent painted the religious pictures to get the point across. Having seen many works from earlier centuries, including those where the more important the person, the bigger his portrait or image in a painting -- which kind of threw the scale of things all to heck -- I can only assume that genuine talent was very primitive back then. Still, I find it offensive personally to find pictures on display which portray the Christ Child as ugly and sometimes even evil looking and find, personally again, no reason for them to be there.

Don't be fooled by your modern-day predjudices when it comes to evaluating older art. It may have a different style than what you're used to, but that doesn't make it worse; not if you value the effect art has over its photorealism. I stand on the shoulders of every artist that has come before me, and the availiablity of nude models, anatomy studies and live-action photographs has been an invaluable asset to modern-day artists. These older artists were working without such things, and without the several hundred years of artistic advancement that I benefit from. Heck, artists didn't even figure out true one-point perspective until the early Renaissance, but I don't blame them for not knowing that; how likely is it that *I* would have figured it out on my own! Your contention that the pictures are ugly and offend you is baffling to me; it's like someone saying we should hide away the Venus of Willendorf because "she's fat." If you don't like them, don't look at them; but they were painted with all the skill the artist had, and it is unlikely they had blasphemous intent. It is true that art was once seen more as a skill than a talent, and scores of purely "workmanlike" art were churned out by the artisans; but there is genuine talent from those days, too, and even the simply "average" pieces are a vital part of our artistic tradition and history.

------------------
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can't see Her.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Gaudere:
Bricker, what circumstances *do* give rise to excommunication? My mother was RCC as a child, but she always told me she was excommunicated for marrying my father, who was divorced (which I suppose makes my brother and me little bastards in the eyes of the Catholic Church. ). Is excommunication perhaps something they were a little more free with 40 years ago?

I'm not sure how such things were handled before Vatican II. While it's possible that excommunication was handed down for such a situation, I think it's far more likely like that your mom was told she could not receive the Eucharist, and took that to mean she was excommunicated. Technically, that penalty is known as a censure.

A bit about sanctions in the Catholic Church: the vast majority of sanctions are ferendae sententiae, that is, they not binding upon the offender until actually imposed by competent authority. In other words, a bishop or priest must actually tell the person, "You are censured," or "You are excommunicated," for the penalty to be in effect.

Penalties for a few very severe offenses are latae sententiae, and are imposed automatically when the offense is committed. If a law is silent on the distinction, it is presumed to be ferendae sententiae; the law must explicitly state that its penalty is latae sententiae and the offender must know of the penalty before committing the offense before the penalty is effective. In fact, there are numerous extenuating circumstances that mitigate the effect of otherwise sanctionable conduct. If there's interest, I'll provide a list.

That said, here are the acts which canon law defines as sanctionable by excommunication:

• Being an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1364 §1)
• One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1367)
• A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs an excommunication (Can. 1370 §1)
• A confessor who absolves his own partner in a sin against the Sixth Commandment (adultery) incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1378 §1, referencing Can. 977)
• Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur an excommunication (Can. 1382)
• A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1388 §1)
• A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1398)

For further reference, see the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, Book VI: Sanctions in the Church, Canons 1311ff.

- Rick